Area Presidency Asks That Church Members in Utah Wear Face Masks

[Scott Lloyd]

I received the following email late this afternoon:

Dear Brothers and Sisters: We are in the midst of a global pandemic unlike any the world has experienced in more than a century. The effects of this escalating health crisis are being felt everywhere, with incidents of COVID-19 infection rising dramatically especially in the United States, including in Utah. Latter-day Saints are not immune. Just today, more than 800 new infections were reported in our state. A growing chorus of medical authorities has confirmed that the simple wearing of a face covering when in public and when social distancing is not possible will significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19. This is true both indoors and outdoors. We note with appreciation the care exhibited by our members in returning to sacrament meetings wearing face masks. Now we ask all Latter-day Saints in the Utah Area to be good citizens by wearing face coverings when in public. Doing so will help promote the health and general welfare of all.  We are most grateful for all you do to minister to one another and to your neighbors. Please join with us now in common purpose for the blessing and benefit of all.  Sincerely yours,  Elder Craig C. Christensen  Elder Randy D. Funk Elder Walter F. González Utah Area Presidency

[CA Steve]

It's the kind of statement that should be coming from the 1st presidency itself and be directed to all members throughout the world.

[Calm]

I agree that it would be more effective to come from the First Presidency.  I hope this happens, but I understand why they left it to the appropriate authority. 
 

I am not sure it is appropriate for global direction. Places like New Zealand where Covid has been very well controlled may not be requiring masks for the healthy due to very low risk of being infectious. 

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-use-face-masks-community

Maybe better to respond to local conditions to make it clear leadership is paying attention to needs of members rather than just treating everyone like they are Americans.  That way more likely to get compliance where it is needed. Plus it is the way it should be given most members are not Americans. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Calm

[USU78]

I hate it that I received confirmation that this is a proper and authorized missive.

Yet my nose smells threats and I fear for our peace, especially with the mobbings over the last couple of weeks.

It is most inconvenient when the Spirit speaks, asking one to support efforts that are quite antithetical to one's inclinations.

[JamesBYoung]

Better to have from the 1st Presidency

 

 

[Duncan]

Pres. Ballard gave that recent interview and he wasn't wearing a mask, I don't want to shame him or anything but, I wonder why he wasn't

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-07-09/pioneer-day-president-ballard-joseph-smith-mary-fielding-smith-188556

[Rain]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree that it would be more effective to come from the First Presidency.  I hope this happens, but I understand why they left it to the appropriate authority. 
 

I am not sure it is appropriate for global direction. Places like New Zealand where Covid has been very well controlled may not be requiring masks for the healthy due to very low risk of being infectious. 

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-use-face-masks-community

Maybe better to respond to local conditions to make it clear leadership is paying attention to needs of members rather than just treating everyone like they are Americans.  That way more likely to get compliance where it is needed. Plus it is the way it should be given most members are not Americans. 

Yes. I only know this through a travel group I am in.  One of the people traveled to the Marshal Islands for work - special approval for some kind of essential work (travel nurse?, can't remember). He said there were no cases there.  He and his family had to quarantine for 24 days.  This was not just a self isolation thing. They weren't allowed to go outside at all.  Food was brought to them and placed at their door.  During the time they were tested 4 times. 

It wouldn't make sense for the first presidency to tell members there they needed to wear masks.

[CA Steve]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not sure it is appropriate for global direction. Places like New Zealand where Covid has been very well controlled may not be requiring masks for the healthy due to very low risk of being infectious. 

Then the statement from the first presidency encouraging everyone to wear masks could include a clause that says "Unless directed otherwise by an area presidency". We should be seeing this direction from the highest levels, now and showing them wearing masks. Pointing out exceptions is not a good idea as it seems way too many people think they are the exceptions.

[pogi]

I was thrilled to receive this letter from the Area Authority, especially after reading this: 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/utah-group-organizes-flash-mobs-at-grocery-stores-to-oppose-face-masks/ar-BB16BmdP

There is a new kind of mob/protesters in town, popping up at a grocery store near you, placing you and your loved ones at risk.  They are violating the rights that these private businesses have to demand masks, and they are violating the law (in Salt Lake County) and disrespecting the constitutional powers given to local governments to protect the community.

Very troubling!

Defending Utah is the name of the group.  The irony is palpable. 

Quote

“Now you don’t have to shop in fear.”

Hopefully the Area Authorities letter will shrink their numbers some. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was thrilled to receive this letter from the Area Authority, especially after reading this: 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/utah-group-organizes-flash-mobs-at-grocery-stores-to-oppose-face-masks/ar-BB16BmdP

There is a new kind of mob/protesters in town, popping up at a grocery store near you, placing you and your loved ones at risk.  They are violating the rights that these private businesses have to demand masks, and they are violating the law (in Salt Lake County) and disrespecting the constitutional powers given to local governments to protect the community.

Very troubling!

Defending Utah is the name of the group.  The irony is palpable. 

Hopefully the Area Authorities letter will shrink their numbers some. 

The judgy is strong with this one. More maskshaming. Sheesh.

[mnn727]

11 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It's the kind of statement that should be coming from the 1st presidency itself and be directed to all members throughout the world.

One size does not fit all. Whats needed in population centers is not needed in many rural areas. Some places have it very well under control and others do not.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The judgy is strong with this one. More maskshaming. Sheesh.

I forgot, it is only ok to be judgy towards some mobs who break laws, disrespect businesses, and place others at risk (and now I can add - disrespecting/disobedience to Church authorities). 

To all mobs:  We are in a pandemic (it's unfortunate that the Area Authority has to point out the obvious for people who don't seem to get it or don't seem to care) and hospitalizations/deaths are spiking across the country.  You are placing our lives and our economy at risk.  Go home!!! 

I am less concerned about their feelings right now, and more concerned about cautious and anxious vulnerable shoppers and grocery store workers standing face to face with these unmasked idiots in an enclosed building, who are ignorantly pretending like the constitution is at risk - with blatant disregard for the 10th amendment. I bet they drove home without a seat belt too. 

I am not going to question someone walking through a grocery store without a mask, until they make their reason known. 

In case you can't tell, I am fed up. Apparently the Area Authority is too.

Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

Good! I hope other area presidents in other high risk areas (which currently includes large Chunks of the US) do the same. 

I’m glad they mentioned the growing consensus among experts. I still have plenty of relatives questioning this. 
 

with luv, 

BD

[provoman]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I received the following email late this afternoon:

I was not thrilled about it. There is already contention between people that uses misinformation to shame/mock others. I my opinion the last thing needed is religious self-righteousness added to the issue. Also it is a bit of a bother that someone would only wear a mask because a spiritual leader said so.

Edited July 11, 2020 by provoman

[USU78]

So soccer moms irritated and exercised about hypocritical government actions who express that irritation by {gasp} flashmobbing a grocery store {but whose target is the government threatening the store with closure} are the same thing as marxoanarchists impeding traffic, overturning police cars, shooting grandpas, and trashing the district attorney's file room? 

Huh?

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So soccer moms irritated and exercised about hypocritical government actions who express that irritation by {gasp} flashmobbing a grocery store {but whose target is the government threatening the store with closure} are the same thing as marxoanarchists impeding traffic, overturning police cars, shooting grandpas, and trashing the district attorney's file room? 

Huh?

I can promise you that if these mobs become as popular as BLM, they would be responsible for more death and catastrophe to our nation and economy than the BLM, bar none.  

Turning over cars and painting buildings is very visually disturbing.  Invisible death is a lot easier to dismiss as "soccer moms...{gasp]} flashmobbing grocery stores", but all the more dangerous and disturbing.  Outdoor mobs wearing masks vs indoor mobs not wearing masks?  A lot more "grandpas" will die from the later - no question.   I guess its not as bad if grandpas shopping in a grocery store take a month or longer to die from contact with your mob, and you don't have to see the effects and consequences of your actions directly.  

They can be irritated by the government all they want, they don't need to place the lives of innocent people at risk, violate constitutional law, and violate private business mandates in doing so.  The conservative government of Utah is not out to strip our rights away little by little by basically asking (not even enforcing) us to wear masks.  The claim is nonsense.  The governments orders are hardly different from the Area Authorities letter.  

Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, provoman said:

Also it is a bit of a bother that someone would only wear a mask because a spiritual leader said so.

Agreed, but better than nothing. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It's the kind of statement that should be coming from the 1st presidency itself and be directed to all members throughout the world.

Not every area in the world is requiring the wearing of face masks. Surgical actions such as this are one of the reasons area leadership is in place. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree that it would be more effective to come from the First Presidency.  I hope this happens, but I understand why they left it to the appropriate authority. 
 

I am not sure it is appropriate for global direction. Places like New Zealand where Covid has been very well controlled may not be requiring masks for the healthy due to very low risk of being infectious. 

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-use-face-masks-community

Maybe better to respond to local conditions to make it clear leadership is paying attention to needs of members rather than just treating everyone like they are Americans.  That way more likely to get compliance where it is needed. Plus it is the way it should be given most members are not Americans. 

I don’t know that it would be more effective. Church members generally understand that area presidencies have line authority flowing from the First Presidency. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Then the statement from the first presidency encouraging everyone to wear masks could include a clause that says "Unless directed otherwise by an area presidency". We should be seeing this direction from the highest levels, now and showing them wearing masks. Pointing out exceptions is not a good idea as it seems way too many people think they are the exceptions.

It would be less efficient to put out a general directive and then expect area presidencies to modify it. Better to let each area presidency respond to local conditions as appropriate. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know that it would be more effective. Church members generally understand that area presidencies have line authority flowing from the First Presidency. 

If Facebook is any indicator, no, they don’t seem to understand that. People are already saying they are not going to follow it if it is not from the first presidency.  It’s astounding to me.

Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I forgot, it is only ok to be judgy towards some mobs who break laws, disrespect businesses, and place others at risk (and now I can add - disrespecting/disobedience to Church authorities). 

To all mobs:  We are in a pandemic (it's unfortunate that the Area Authority has to point out the obvious for people who don't seem to get it or don't seem to care) and hospitalizations/deaths are spiking across the country.  You are placing our lives and our economy at risk.  Go home!!! 

I am less concerned about their feelings right now, and more concerned about cautious and anxious vulnerable shoppers and grocery store workers standing face to face with these unmasked idiots in an enclosed building, who are ignorantly pretending like the constitution is at risk - with blatant disregard for the 10th amendment. I bet they drove home without a seat belt too. 

I am not going to question someone walking through a grocery store without a mask, until they make their reason known. 

In case you can't tell, I am fed up. Apparently the Area Authority is too.

“Area authority” has been outmoded terminology for many years. Say Area President or Area Presidency or Area Seventy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

If Facebook is any indicator, no, they don’t seem to understand that. People are already saying they are not going to follow it if it is not from the first presidency.  It’s astounding to me.

Those are probably people who would grumble and complain even if it did come from the First Presidency (as some here seem to be doing about the First Presidency decision to let the Area Presidency handle it.) Faithful and devoted Church members are apt to recognize the authority of the Area Presidency. 

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...authority of the Area Presidency. 

Warning, warning, the following message may trigger you:

Area authority, for short.

Im just messing with you, old habits die hard.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

General Church leadership is all too often criticized for being too provincial in its directives and responses to current circumstances. Yet now, folks are fussing over the First Presidency letting the Utah Area Presidency handle a Utah-based matter. 
 

It’s another illustration of their being darned if they do and darned if they don’t.